Humiliation/Rough, Abusive Sex.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Dunno if I ever started this discussion on here before but its a topic that fascinates me. What is the psychology/sociology behind rough, abusive sex and humiliation? I'm not using the term BDSM here as I think that that has more specific and formal connotations, although I'd guess that there is a crossover between the psychologies of those involved in either or.

I am sexually dominant and my sexual partners nearly always seem to be very submissive - not always in personality but mostly always in the bedroom. In fact, I have also noticed that women that aren't submissive in a sexual sense tend to lose interest in me, whilst submissive women tend to fall for me and want to be with me in a general sense, rather than just a one-off sexual one.

After gaining sexual experience and experimenting with partners, I found that some of them liked to be abused and degraded in the bedroom and I also liked doing it. This amounts to hair-pulling, slapping, spitting, choking, name-calling amongst other things. It scared me for a long time and still does - abuse is everything I stand against but I've been complicit in it in the bedroom (I want to make it very clear that this is always based on consent). What does this say about me, but more fascinatingly in my regard, what does it say about submissive individuals? Generally these people are independent in a social context but submit in the bedroom, although I've also noticed that submission can also crossover to 'normal' settings (small things, like submitting when it comes to taking the lead on decisions on where to go, what to eat, for example).

A final point, which raises anxiety in me, is that at least 3 of my previous partners in this regard were sexually abused or raped - is this perhaps a factor? My current girlfriend is one of the most submissive I have been with, and I am terrified that she wants to engage in these kinds of acts as some kind of way to deal with a previous abuse that I'm not aware of and she may not have told anyone (I probably shouldn't assume this but it is a fear and I don't want to hurt her or act as a trigger). I was also reading on a forum for abuse survivors that many survivors have fantasies in which they are degraded and/or abused, some of them acting on these fantasies. Many of them feel a lot of shame for having these feelings.

Anyway, some insight into this topic would be great as well as anything scientific, but even opinions (experiential or otherwise) would be interesting to me. I'm fascinated by this facet of sexuality and wonder where it comes from. I also feel a lot of anxiety and guilt regarding it, as I consider myself a feminist, but engage in sexual acts which (based on consent, to reiterate) degrade and humiliate women for theirs and my pleasure.

What does this say about the dominant figure and the submissive figure? I'd also point out that I have a fairly authoritarian personality in some ways outside of sexuality, or at least have some desire to dominate, but it is more of an underlying desire than something I act upon (depends on the situation I suppose).

[Rafiq]

Maybe it's a means to express the repressive relations embedded upon us by class society. For example, in an actually abusive relationship outside of sex, I would imagine sex is not "rough" because the violence is expressed through structural or social means. I don't see the problem with rough sex. It is honest, and if there was ever a sex which was non-repressive or feminist in nature, it is rough sex, direct and clear.

Rough sex in this sense is comparable to revolutionary violence.

[BIXX]

Maybe it's a means to express the repressive relations embedded upon us by class society. For example, in an actually abusive relationship outside of sex, I would imagine sex is not "rough" because the violence is expressed through structural or social means. I don't see the problem with rough sex. It is honest, and if there was ever a sex which was non-repressive or feminist in nature, it is rough sex, direct and clear.

Rough sex in this sense is comparable to revolutionary violence.

So, I think this means rough sex is revolutionary... YES!!! :laugh:

As to the OP, I'm in kinda the same position. I am dominate in the bedroom, however I feel it doesn't really reflect on who I am outside of it. It does make me feel guilty cause I'm worried that my girlfriend might not actually be into it, even though she says she is.

[ind_com]

If this has nothing to do with the class society, or more accurately, with the tendency of the physically stronger male of subduing the female, then the percentage of both the sexes should be roughly equal among both sexually dominant and submissive individuals. Is that the case?

P.S. - This is at present a secondary contradiction though, but this question will definitely be raised during the advancement of socialism.

[Decolonize The Left]

We all should be aware of the fact that rape/abuse victims undergo immense trauma in that/those event(s). This trauma is often incredibly difficult to deal with and the human mind and body can process this trauma in many different ways, including through reenactments in similar situations which are more controlled - such as 'rough' sex.

I'm no expert on this matter, but so long as everything is entirely consensual, I don't see the issue. Perhaps you'd like to talk it out with your partners more?

[Manar]

Maybe it's a means to express the repressive relations embedded upon us by class society. For example, in an actually abusive relationship outside of sex, I would imagine sex is not "rough" because the violence is expressed through structural or social means. I don't see the problem with rough sex. It is honest, and if there was ever a sex which was non-repressive or feminist in nature, it is rough sex, direct and clear.

Rough sex in this sense is comparable to revolutionary violence.
Are you operating on the premise that sex is violence, and based on that premise, are you saying that it is our duty to inflict revolutionary violence in the act of sex? Isn't that basically the mentality of a rapist? Am I understanding you correctly? Or not? :confused:

[Rafiq]

Are you operating on the premise that sex is violence, and based on that premise, are you saying that it is our duty to inflict revolutionary violence in the act of sex? Isn't that basically the mentality of a rapist? Am I understanding you correctly? Or not? :confused:

No, you don't.

Rough sex is analogous to revolutionary violence in the sense that revolutionary violence is honest and direct in the sense that it unveils the true nature of existing social relations. In the same sense, rough sex unveils the violent and brutal nature of sexual relations in the most direct and honest sense imaginable (of which relations open social space for rape and so on). Rough sex and rape have absolutely nothing in common, the latter is a part of repressive sexual relations while the former is an act of honesty which reveals to both consensual partners the nature of existing relations.

In an abusive relationship where rape would actually occur, sex would not be rough, sex would veil the actually repressive relationship that is occuring, and all of the brutality and repressiveness of the relationship would be mediated and expressed through the actual relationship itself. In this same sense, the capitalist mode of production is sustained by extreme violence and repression and therefore, in liberal democracies, political power doesn't have to utilize direct and clear forms of repression, rather class dictatorship is veiled by the very opposite. However inevitably a revolution would tear down these structures and therefore unveil the foundations of existing structural power.

Though speaking to an apologist and running dog of Islamism, I expect a revolution to you is something entirely different.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Honestly, my philosophy has always been 'whatever floats your boat'. I think every single human being that ever lived has some odd kink about them, be it anything from a simple foot fetish to spanking to shibari to fursuits. People are just kinky by nature, and we should embrace that. Sex is its own reward, so have fun with it!


On another note.....where are all of these horny twenty-somethings and why can't I find them, goddamit?! :crying:

[Skyhilist]

I don't know if it's safe to say that rape is always what initiates someone's desire to be dominant/submissive. I for one, am a bit of a masochist sexually (although not THAT extreme), and have developed that tendency over the past few years, and frankly have often wondered why. This is also more uncommon because I am a cis male, and haven't really dealt with abuse that is very strong (other than occasional verbal abuse from my mother who will say things like "shut the fuck up", "are you that fucking stupid?!", "you're a disgrace" and things like that occasionally when she's in my dad mood. Very very rarely my father is also like this but it's usually not as bad).

[human strike]

I can't help thinking that a discussion of pornography is thus far missing. There is an observable trend of mainstream porn depicting increasingly more violent and humiliating acts being carried out on women - why? Commonly anti-porn feminists have attacked porn for this and criticised it for encouraging violence against women. But if what Rafiq is saying is true, then perhaps this merely reflects a growing desire in its audience for rough sex and to consume the image of rough sex? I don't know what to make of that, but it's an interesting thought.

The crux of the issue though really is consent. Rough and humiliating sex and actual sexual abuse are fundamentally different and I don't think that desires of wanting to be dominant or submissive need be a matter of concern as long as consent is observed. What would be a shame is if these sexual desires were repressed for whatever reason, rather than enjoyed. Like I said, it all comes down to consent - consent is very sexy.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I can't help thinking that a discussion of pornography is thus far missing. There is an observable trend of mainstream porn depicting increasingly more violent and humiliating acts being carried out on women - why? Commonly anti-porn feminists have attacked porn for this and criticised it for encouraging violence against women. But if what Rafiq is saying is true, then perhaps this merely reflects a growing desire in its audience for rough sex and to consume the image of rough sex? I don't know what to make of that, but it's an interesting thought.

The crux of the issue though really is consent. Rough and humiliating sex and actual sexual abuse are fundamentally different and I don't think that desires of wanting to be dominant or submissive need be a matter of concern as long as consent is observed. What would be a shame is if these sexual desires were repressed for whatever reason, rather than enjoyed. Like I said, it all comes down to consent - consent is very sexy.
The point about pornography is interesting and my current partner has told me that she has learnt certain submissive acts through watching porn herself. I try and stay away from it, personally, given that I have problems with the porn industry in an ethical sense (like any industry I suppose, and how they treat workers).

The issue with regards to the pornography aspect is that it is difficult to determine whether this desire that many men and women have for rough sex came first or whether it was a kind of 'creation' of the porn industry. Dialectically speaking, this relationship is dialogical, so there must have been this desire before, which became a part of the porn industry and perhaps further influenced these desires between individuals and helped to (sort of) normalize them. In the case of my partner, she had the existential desire to be dominated before certain acts themselves became known to her - its hard to trace the roots of this desire and the acts that facilitate it.

My suspicion is that these acts are a product of patriarchy, when we are talking about cis sexuality with dominant males, which I'd guess is the norm in a statistical sense. I can feel like a monster at times, and I believe that it is reflective of my social position as a male. My partner is a 'girly' girl and is not a feminist, she doesn't believe that she can be classed as such and we have considered our sexual relationship as quite patriarchal - the issue that I have anxiety about is the fact that we both enjoy it. I suspect that these aspects of sexuality result from patriarchal society and the complex social relations that come with this, which are far too varied to list. I can take solace in the idea that this is confined to the bedroom, although my male privilege naturally extends beyond that because, purely, my position of society and her lack of feminism. I suppose I have a duty to be a feminist but when I talk about my male privilege, I am speaking about this as being a part of my (sub)consciousness - this is false consciousness and none of us can claim to be purely conscious beyond it, given that we are conditioned by our socio-economic position. The latter part of my upbringing was severely patriarchal and my mother ended up in a seriously abusive relationship - she was like a slave, and she slaved over me too, which, as a child, I didn't have the capacity to question. It was merely the way it was, my mother cooked, cleaned, did the shopping and whatever other 'female' duties patriarchal households 'require'. Since growing up, learning and becoming conscious, I have dismissed this aspect of my upbringing and am disgusted by it, but there are subconscious remnants of patriarchy in what I would call my false-consciousness in the Marxist sense. I'd argue that this is the norm for most men, at varying degrees, even those who would consider themselves feminists. And of course women, who internalize many of the social roles that patriarchal society creates. Furthermore, the lack of clarity of what feminism is actually furthers this problem.

My question really rests upon these notions of sexuality on an intricate level. I'm interested in Foucault's work but he didn't really touch on micro-sexuality and I think that there must be a lot to be said about one on one sexual relations in relation to the socio-economic arrangement that surrounds them. Can we really dismiss all of it as merely kinky? Isn't there a broader meaning to these kind of relations? We could take the question further and ask about the women that have rape fantasies - what is this about? No woman wants to be raped, but many of them are aroused by the notion in fantasies. No woman wants to be hurt but many of them enjoy pain play in the bedroom.

Also I'm not assuming that this is merely a female-phenomenon, but we can be sure that this submissive desire for what I would actually call abusive, rather than just rough, sex, is far more prominent amongst cis females than other genders. I'm using an ideal-type here for the sake of discussion, feel free to call me on it. I wonder if this can be quantified in any way, sociologically or psychologically. Perhaps not quantified, but understood better and outside of the rash statement about 'kink'.

[human strike]

The point about pornography is interesting and my current partner has told me that she has learnt certain submissive acts through watching porn herself. I try and stay away from it, personally, given that I have problems with the porn industry in an ethical sense (like any industry I suppose, and how they treat workers).

The issue with regards to the pornography aspect is that it is difficult to determine whether this desire that many men and women have for rough sex came first or whether it was a kind of 'creation' of the porn industry. Dialectically speaking, this relationship is dialogical, so there must have been this desire before, which became a part of the porn industry and perhaps further influenced these desires between individuals and helped to (sort of) normalize them. In the case of my partner, she had the existential desire to be dominated before certain acts themselves became known to her - its hard to trace the roots of this desire and the acts that facilitate it.

My suspicion is that these acts are a product of patriarchy, when we are talking about cis sexuality with dominant males, which I'd guess is the norm in a statistical sense. I can feel like a monster at times, and I believe that it is reflective of my social position as a male. My partner is a 'girly' girl and is not a feminist, she doesn't believe that she can be classed as such and we have considered our sexual relationship as quite patriarchal - the issue that I have anxiety about is the fact that we both enjoy it. I suspect that these aspects of sexuality result from patriarchal society and the complex social relations that come with this, which are far too varied to list. I can take solace in the idea that this is confined to the bedroom, although my male privilege naturally extends beyond that because, purely, my position of society and her lack of feminism. I suppose I have a duty to be a feminist but when I talk about my male privilege, I am speaking about this as being a part of my (sub)consciousness - this is false consciousness and none of us can claim to be purely conscious beyond it, given that we are conditioned by our socio-economic position. The latter part of my upbringing was severely patriarchal and my mother ended up in a seriously abusive relationship - she was like a slave, and she slaved over me too, which, as a child, I didn't have the capacity to question. It was merely the way it was, my mother cooked, cleaned, did the shopping and whatever other 'female' duties patriarchal households 'require'. Since growing up, learning and becoming conscious, I have dismissed this aspect of my upbringing and am disgusted by it, but there are subconscious remnants of patriarchy in what I would call my false-consciousness in the Marxist sense. I'd argue that this is the norm for most men, at varying degrees, even those who would consider themselves feminists. And of course women, who internalize many of the social roles that patriarchal society creates. Furthermore, the lack of clarity of what feminism is actually furthers this problem.

My question really rests upon these notions of sexuality on an intricate level. I'm interested in Foucault's work but he didn't really touch on micro-sexuality and I think that there must be a lot to be said about one on one sexual relations in relation to the socio-economic arrangement that surrounds them. Can we really dismiss all of it as merely kinky? Isn't there a broader meaning to these kind of relations? We could take the question further and ask about the women that have rape fantasies - what is this about? No woman wants to be raped, but many of them are aroused by the notion in fantasies. No woman wants to be hurt but many of them enjoy pain play in the bedroom.

Also I'm not assuming that this is merely a female-phenomenon, but we can be sure that this submissive desire for what I would actually call abusive, rather than just rough, sex, is far more prominent amongst cis females than other genders. I'm using an ideal-type here for the sake of discussion, feel free to call me on it. I wonder if this can be quantified in any way, sociologically or psychologically. Perhaps not quantified, but understood better and outside of the rash statement about 'kink'.

I agree that it is definitely the product of patriarchy, but does it reinforce patriarchy? I don't know the answer; I can think of ways in which it might, but I can also think of ways in which it challenges patriarchy. It's good to think critically about desires like this, but I think one would be doing oneself a disservice by feeling guilty about them.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I like it both ways, somedays I'll be the submissive one, sometimes I'm the dominant one. What is this supposed to reflect? I don't know.

[human strike]

This is related. This is a section I found in a zine on dealing with sexual assault in activist circles - this page deals specifically on the difference between S/M and abuse.


ABUSE IS NOT S/M AND S/M IS NOT ABUSE
by the Northwest Network


Whether you are topping, or bottoming, or both, these are some questions to ask yourself:


■ Is your partner turned on by violating your limits or terms?
■ Does your partner not use a safeword, and then later say you violated his/her limits?
■ Does she claim to know more about your s/m “energy” than you do?
■ Does your partner try to extend a dynamic outside of a scene without your consent?
■ Does your partner expect you to read her mind about what she/he wants?
■ Does your partner refuse to talk about what felt wrong or confusing to you about a scene?
■ Does your partner negotiate while in role when you haven’t agreed to that?
■ Do you feel guilty after playing, like you’ve done something wrong?
■ Do you feel like you’re playing because you have to?
■ Does your partner involve others in your scenes without asking?
■ Does your partner say you pushed her/him too far even though you stayed within the limits you negotiated?
■ Does your partner humiliate you by talking about your play in public without your consent?
■ Does your partner use arousal or orgasm as evidence of consent?
■ Do you feel fear or dread about ending a scene or setting a limit?
■ Does she say you’re not “real” for wanting to switch or pressure you into switching?
■ Are you confused about when a scene begins and ends?
■ Do you feel that if you could just play better, be hotter or give/take more, everything could be okay?
■ Does you partner use scenes to suppress or cover up anger and frustration?


S/M play is consensual
Abuse is not consensual


S/M play is negotiated and agreed upon ahead of time
Abuse is not negotiated


S/M has responsible limits and safety rules
Abuse has no rules or limits and there are no safewords


S/M is fun, erotic and loving
Abuse is manipulative, selfish and hurtful


S/M play is enjoyed by both
Victims do not enjoy abuse


S/M play can be stopped by either partner at any time
Abuse cannot be stopped by the victim/survivor


Players exchange power in agreed upon roles with negotiated boundaries
Abusers force control using non-consensual manipulation and violence

S/M creates a bond of trust
Abuse destroys trust


http://www.incite-national.org/media/docs/0985_revolution-starts-at-home.pdf (page 95)

[human strike]

Very relevant: The Fantasy of Acceptable “Non-Consent”: Why the Female Sexual Submissive Scares Us (and Why She Shouldn’t) (http://www.alternet.org/story/113745/the_fantasy_of_acceptable_%27non-consent%27%3A_why_the_female_sexual_submissive_sca res_us_%28and_why_she_shouldn%27t%29)

Basically, it corroborates what Rafiq was saying and implies that consensual "non-consensual" sex is the antithesis of rape culture.

[Sea]

We all should be aware of the fact that rape/abuse victims undergo immense trauma in that/those event(s). This trauma is often incredibly difficult to deal with and the human mind and body can process this trauma in many different ways, including through reenactments in similar situations which are more controlled - such as 'rough' sex. [The mentality of the person playing the submissive role is the opposite in cases of rape than it is in "rough" sex or S&M, though.

I like it both ways, somedays I'll be the submissive one, sometimes I'm the dominant one.I think that's called dialectical sex.

[Leftsolidarity]

Trashed off-topic, troll, and no substance posts. This isn't chit-chat.

[Ocean Seal]

Maybe it's a means to express the repressive relations embedded upon us by class society. For example, in an actually abusive relationship outside of sex, I would imagine sex is not "rough" because the violence is expressed through structural or social means. I don't see the problem with rough sex. It is honest, and if there was ever a sex which was non-repressive or feminist in nature, it is rough sex, direct and clear.

Rough sex in this sense is comparable to revolutionary violence.
Rough Sex is acceptable, but it is not revolutionary violence. It does not by it as an act automatically place inequitable social relations in plain view. Sex is generally an escape, and only in a revolutionary situation does it change in a truly radical form.

[Rafiq]

Rough Sex is acceptable, but it is not revolutionary violence. It does not by it as an act automatically place inequitable social relations in plain view. Sex is generally an escape, and only in a revolutionary situation does it change in a truly radical form.

No, it changes after a revolutionary situation. Rough sex is allegorical to revolutionary violence, but you're correct, they are not the same.

[Consistent.Surprise]

I'm going to pop in with my personal psychological thoughts on BDSM & WHY I (personally) have preference for things & where they help me mentally (as I have discussed with others on the Scene)

Forms of consensual, physical abusive/roughness such as biting, spanking, hair pulling for many subs is a way to have all that negative feeling be enforced. The big thing is there must be aftercare. This enforces they are loved & desired & worth the other person's time.

I've been abused. My mother was physically abusive & I had an abusive partner. Having a partner be physically hurtful (in a pleasurable &/or therapeutic way) then to enforce what a great person I am, removes the negative impact from my mother & former partner, giving me a sense of compassion & understanding that the physical actions I desire are a manifestation of my inner voice.

I know few that like to be degraded but dated someone who liked to do it. I told him it was a limit. I put myself down too much already! I want affirmation of my inner pain expressed as physical pain.

The big thing about BDSM (even though OP wanted to not state it as such but the kinky gal reads it as such) ALWAYS there must be consent! Talk about likes, dislikes, hard limits, etc. Safe words for play are important; great BDSM relationships are based on communication. This should transcend all intimate relationships. Imagine how much better those would be?

[Consistent.Surprise]

Oh! & I don't label myself as sub/Domme/Switch. I can change at any moment & give (as well as get) my satisfaction on equal terms. I also can be sadistic or masochistic.

[synthesis]

Very relevant: The Fantasy of Acceptable “Non-Consent”: Why the Female Sexual Submissive Scares Us (and Why She Shouldn’t) (http://www.alternet.org/story/113745/the_fantasy_of_acceptable_%27non-consent%27%3A_why_the_female_sexual_submissive_sca res_us_%28and_why_she_shouldn%27t%29)

Basically, it corroborates what Rafiq was saying and implies that consensual "non-consensual" sex is the antithesis of rape culture.

Interesting article. I've been curious for some time now to read a political take on rape fantasy that didn't condemn it completely, since it seems to come up fairly often in my personal life. Although, now that I think about it, it seems like it was a matter of being subtly invited to be more sexually aggressive/"rough" and I just didn't pick up on it.

Now I feel bad because it opens by talking about "guilt and shame among women who have fantasies of their own violation and express a desire to be demeaned" and I'm not sure if I contributed to it by reacting the way I did. (As in, I'm pretty sure I had an unconscious "that's fucked up" expression on my face when the desire was being expressed to me.)

[human strike]

I know I have posted a lot of links in this thread, but here's another. Remember picking this up in a free paper at a student demo back in January 2011, but forgot about it until today. It's a vague guide to BDSM but discussing it consciously from the perspective that has been outlined in this thread: http://wearethepaperdotorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/eros/

[human strike]

The following appeared as a chapter in Queering Anarchism: Essays on Gender, Power, and Desire

Anarchy, BDSM and Consent Based Culture
hexe

I want to talk about anarchy, and I want to talk about BDSM and kinky sex. They are both incredibly controversial subjects. So let’s start slowly, with some lube. As if we were going to attempt anal sex.

Let’s do some defining. Defining is great; it makes sense of previously confusing subjects. BDSM is an acronym that has several interpretations; indeed, it is a compound acronym! It is derived from the terms bondage and discipline (B&D or B/D), dominance and submission (D&S or D/s), and sadism and masochism (S&M or S/M). BDSM includes a wide spectrum of activities, interpersonal relationships, and distinct subcultures. Participants usually take on complementary but unequal roles within a BDSM context.

The idea of consent of both the partners becomes essential. Often participants who are active (applying the activity or exercising some from of control over others) are known as tops or dominants. Those participants who are recipients of the activities, or who are controlled by their partners, are typically known as bottoms or submissives. Individuals who assume either top/dominant or bottom/ submissive roles (whether from relationship to relationship or with- in a specific relationship only) are known as switches. I should also mention that tops and dominants are different roles, and bottoms and submissives are also different roles. The differences are not immediately apparent to the outside observer, but very important to the people who identify with them. There are also people who enjoy aspects of BDSM that are not explicitly sexual. BDSM is based on sexual practices but also incorporates our daily interactions and experiences with power. So that is the very, very tip of the iceberg. Inevitably, no matter what, someone somewhere will find offense with any definition and start a heated discussion about it.

The diverse rainbow of anarchy, henceforth referred to as the ‘Anarchy-Bow,’ can be a confusing mess. It is comprised of bickering theorists, insurrectionists, primitivists, armchair radicals, and the occasional right-wing jerk all struggling to be correct about the next tactic or developing analysis. There is often disagreement within the Anarchy-Bow. This disagreement is particularly rabid due to a basic consensus. The Anarchy-Bow disagrees with itself with the rabid intensity of people who share similar ethics debating how to change the current world order from a hierarchy based on abuse and exploitation to a system without someone at the top of the oppression pyramid scheme. (And without the entire pyramid scheme). What we want is a system that benefits everyone and eliminates prejudice and racism and the inequalities of capitalism; and then we’ll all have our own unicorn to ride along shining streams. Because you know you want your own unicorn. To ride into battle. Against capitalism.

In an attempt to simplify the Anarchy-Bow, I have divined what is to me the First Unwritten Rule of Anarchy. The First Unwritten Rule of Anarchy is “Don’t Be A Douchebag.” All of the fancy theories, all of the discussion about tactics and support and building a new world by tearing down the old and whatnot all come down to the fact that in this world people are often douchebags. They are douchebags to one another; they are douchebags to the planet; they are douchebags to animals. There are whole systems of indoctrination that teach us to be douchebags to one another from the time we are children. Many people have spent lots and lots of time explaining the ways that people are douchebags and how the structure of society teaches us to be douchebags. The goal of anarchy is to change that, not just a little, but entirely.

All of our wonderful systems of organization and activism that work so well are often undermined by the brokenness of the system we are raised in. The way that even in a non-hierarchical organization there are often people who call the shots, or the person who is always getting their way and not allowing others to speak. We are the result of hundreds of years of oppression, colonization, capitalism, genocide, racism, and sexism. We can’t help but have internalized some of that, even if we are dedicated to changing the system. Often this happens on the traditional lines of gender and race oppressions, but other times it is subtler. In attempting to dismantle a busted system, we all bring our own baggage and prejudices. What we can do is learn from it and work to make our practice of anarchy as equal as possible.

Revolution is a funny word. It has been assigned to many things, and according to the cultural history of the United States of America there has already been a sexual revolution. A lot of people in the last century did a lot of work around sexuality and freedom and we are benefiting from it today, but there were radicals before the hippies who were doing and saying the same things about sexual freedom. The sexual revolution has been happening for a long time and continues to do so. Some people even go so far as to say anarchy is love. Which sounds like we’re all a bunch of hippies with fancy analyses of politics and anti-oppression and whatnot, but I’m sure Emma Goldman had no fucking clue what a hippie was going to be and she was all about love. Emma Goldman was a really huge badass. Sadly there are no surviving pictures of her riding a unicorn.

I believe there are hundreds of sexual revolutions happening every day. Every day a person accepts themselves and their sexuality and supports one another to subvert the heterosexist idea that the only valid sexual relationships are between one man and one woman. The dominant narrative says they must both be cisgendered— having a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity. This oppression hurts all of us. Sex can be very personally revolutionary. It can be healthy and it can be a form of self-care and it can be medicine, but only if it is done with full consent and participation of all parties. Historically anarchists have been very vocal about supporting sexual freedom and queer rights. Emma Goldman spoke out against marriage and for the right of women to have access to birth control; her lover and compatriot Alexander Berkman wrote about being queer and supporting queer rights. Anarchy has always been a little queer, and anarchists have always been nerds for sexual freedom and choice. Why not BDSM as well?

You might have noticed I used the word “queer” in several different ways. Originally queer was used to describe something odd, or abnormal. It is also used in reference to a group of people. Traditionally “queers” have been folk who engage in sexy times with people of a similar gender, transgendered folk, and extends to include those who engage in relationships outside the heteronormative monogamous party line. The label queer was reclaimed from being a slur, an insult. That’s how tough we are; we can take language intended to hurt us and turn it into a something completely different. The definition has fluctuated and is often in debate. To queer something, used as a verb is to subvert it, change it subtly or radically. Like we did with the use and definition of the word itself. The Anarchy-Bow both loves and hates queerness.

Like in the anarchist community, again in the BDSM community there is the problem of people coming to it as a sexual practice with the same amount of baggage as when people come to anarchy. I have sometimes heard people speak of their personal practice of BDSM as if it cures all things. In those experiences, I felt like I was witnessing a personal spiritual moment. I am not a proponent of choosing anything as your shining light, though as a human race we have a tendency to do so. The mainstream BDSM community has been called out in many, many instances for sexism, heterosexism, racism, ableism, and not being accessible to people who are not middle class or financially liquid. Sexism, the act of gender discrimination, is a problem in almost every part of this society and hence carries over into BDSM spaces. Heterosexism is interesting in the context of the current incarnation of the mainstream BDSM community, which often identifies itself as a pansexual, open to all sexualities and genders, space. The history of BDSM in the United States comes directly from queer spaces, particularly the gay male leather and fist- ing community, quickly taking hold in lesbian spaces as well. At a certain point, some called BDSM the practice of “radical sex.” One thing the BDSM community adheres to with a passion is the idea of consensual power exchange. A scene can look non-consensual, can be playing with non-consent, but it is still just playing.

One’s experience with BDSM, like any sexual practice, is personal. For some it’s not something they will be interested in for various reasons. Some people just aren’t wired kinky; some people need time to work out their feelings about it. There’s a lot of guilt around sexuality in general, and around non-normative sexuality specifically. It’s a hard journey for a lot of us to a place where we are comfortable with all aspects of our selves and our sexuality. Another thing folks have come up against is just plain bad experiences with BDSM. Maybe the person they played with was a jerk and didn’t respect their boundaries. Maybe they had a bad experience with the community they joined to experience BDSM. Maybe they just felt alienated by some of the monetary barriers to the BDSM scene; play parties cost a lot of money; conventions cost hundreds of dollars, and that’s before you add in lodging and food. Or perhaps the overwhelming lack of people of color in many kinky communities was a barrier. There is value in BDSM as a fun thing, as a human need, as a fulfilling practice, as a way to play with power, and just as a way to play as an adult. We can’t take off our skin color or gender easily or switch up our privileges at the drop of a hat in the real world, but we can play with power and control or the lack of it in a BDSM scene. And it ends when you are done. Not when the intersections of oppressions and privilege stop doing their various screwy things, because that might take a while. We’re chipping steadily away at them, but the leviathan of inequality is massive. The ability to play with power can teach us new ways to understand how we have internalized different parts of the abusive dominant culture, and new ways to think about resistance.

Doing anarchy might not include practicing BDSM, but doesn’t exclude it either. BDSM and anarchy have more than their share of differences, but if anything, there is one fetish both anarchists and BDSM folk share and that is a fetish for consent and organizing people. Both communities are consent-based cultures. Consent is the act of agreeing to an act, situation, or circumstance by various means, generally verbal or written. Occasionally implied consent is used in medical situations so caregivers can administer medical attention while someone is unconscious. However, administering a life saving protocol and having sex with someone are too drastically different to fall under the same guidelines of consent. By con- sent-based cultures I mean they talk about consent, they discuss ways to gain and give consent. As a community and as individuals they write things about consent, what it means to them, and how to implement it

The dominant culture is terrible at consent; capitalism doesn’t ask if you want to be exploited; patriarchy doesn’t ask if you want to be considered a second class citizen based on what’s between your legs, or, inversely, be taught to be an oppressor based on what’s between your legs. We are all constantly learning how to give and obtain consent, and not everyone is good at it...yet. Everyone has a story about a creepy anarchist or a messed up kinky person not respecting folks. Through applying active principles of consent to our lives and our sex lives and taking that into every relationship we have, sexual and non sexual, more and more people will be able to use those skills, and we will always be improving our own use of consent as well.

Everything and anything can be revolutionary. The most insignificant tool can begin an insurrection. Anything that is fulfilling, healthy and doesn’t harm anyone else can be medicine. As a community and as individuals it is a revolutionary act to be dedicated to consent. Doing anarchy and doing BDSM are not things that inter- sect often except in the lives of people who practice both. However, if there is something that both the anarchy-bow and ethical BDSM practices can give to the struggle for a just society, it is the skill of active consent.

And everyone gets a unicorn.

[adipocere]

I am sexually dominant and my sexual partners nearly always seem to be very submissive - not always in personality but mostly always in the bedroom. In fact, I have also noticed that women that aren't submissive in a sexual sense tend to lose interest in me, whilst submissive women tend to fall for me and want to be with me in a general sense, rather than just a one-off sexual one.

I found that some of them liked to be abused and degraded in the bedroom and I also liked doing it. This amounts to hair-pulling, slapping, spitting, choking, name-calling amongst other things. It scared me for a long time and still does - abuse is everything I stand against but I've been complicit in it in the bedroom (I want to make it very clear that this is always based on consent). What does this say about me, but more fascinatingly in my regard, what does it say about submissive individuals?

A final point, which raises anxiety in me, is that at least 3 of my previous partners in this regard were sexually abused or raped - is this perhaps a factor? My current girlfriend is one of the most submissive I have been with

What does this say about the dominant figure and the submissive figure?

Well, no offense, but my initial reaction is that the dominant figure in this relationship is unconsciously hostile towards women, particularly towards women's sexuality or the dominant person feels deep personal inadequacy in regular life (ie work, school, social life) and they release their frustrations in private, controlled environments through activities with timid people to assert control, even symbolically, on other people who may or may not "threaten" the dominant one.

You seem to have some anxiety over your actions but I also noticed that you spoke about this almost as an observer. I think it is interesting that the you are quick to point out how consensual it all is and how the women like it, yet it causes you some anxiety. I see a bit of a blame shift here. I also noted how you pointed out that some of your partners were sexually abused/raped - further shifting your behavior as something you assume that they desire because they are going along with it physically and verbally - which could actually betray their own underlying feelings that sexual abuse and rape are something they somehow went along with.
It sounds like you are passing the responsibility of the degradation onto the woman - she likes it therefore it's ok for me to like it. It is also possible that these women enjoy it because you do...they derive their pleasure from your pleasure. It's possible that if you were really into "normal" sex, then your partners would too. What is your psychology here? You're playing the typical good guy role in a one sided story. Maybe you should think about that. Perhaps the reason these women stay interested in you over rough sex is because you are interested in women willing to be choked and spit on. However, I do think it's a two way street. I do think that abused women seek abusers - though I'm not saying your relationship is abusive. I'm just looking at it from another angle.

I also find that a lot of well meaning men are intellectually feminist, but they still have deep hostilities towards women and they choose to be actively feminist because they recognize this on some level and it doesn't mesh with their attraction to women with strong personalities. However, many women have hostile feelings towards other women as well - such is the nature of deep institutionalized oppression. The oppression runs so deep, it turns into something like self-loathing.

I'm not trying to seem combatative...it's just my opinion you are looking here to find validation for behavior that you know on some level is contrary to what you feel is moral. I think that a pattern of dominating sexual behavior (with a series of people predisposed to submission) is an expression of feelings of personal inadequacy. Submission, in my opinion, has something to do with feelings of guilt and underlying low self esteem - and claims by the submissive person that they enjoy it or feel empowered by it are either defensive denial or evidence of fairly deep emotional damage. This is, of course, only my opinion.

[human strike]

Well, no offense, but my initial reaction is that the dominant figure in this relationship is unconsciously hostile towards women, particularly towards women's sexuality or the dominant person feels deep personal inadequacy in regular life (ie work, school, social life) and they release their frustrations in private, controlled environments through activities with timid people to assert control, even symbolically, on other people who may or may not "threaten" the dominant one.

You seem to have some anxiety over your actions but I also noticed that you spoke about this almost as an observer. I think it is interesting that the you are quick to point out how consensual it all is and how the women like it, yet it causes you some anxiety. I see a bit of a blame shift here. I also noted how you pointed out that some of your partners were sexually abused/raped - further shifting your behavior as something you assume that they desire because they are going along with it physically and verbally - which could actually betray their own underlying feelings that sexual abuse and rape are something they somehow went along with.
It sounds like you are passing the responsibility of the degradation onto the woman - she likes it therefore it's ok for me to like it. It is also possible that these women enjoy it because you do...they derive their pleasure from your pleasure. It's possible that if you were really into "normal" sex, then your partners would too. What is your psychology here? You're playing the typical good guy role in a one sided story. Maybe you should think about that. Perhaps the reason these women stay interested in you over rough sex is because you are interested in women willing to be choked and spit on. However, I do think it's a two way street. I do think that abused women seek abusers - though I'm not saying your relationship is abusive. I'm just looking at it from another angle.

I also find that a lot of well meaning men are intellectually feminist, but they still have deep hostilities towards women and they choose to be actively feminist because they recognize this on some level and it doesn't mesh with their attraction to women with strong personalities. However, many women have hostile feelings towards other women as well - such is the nature of deep institutionalized oppression. The oppression runs so deep, it turns into something like self-loathing.

I'm not trying to seem combatative...it's just my opinion you are looking here to find validation for behavior that you know on some level is contrary to what you feel is moral. I think that a pattern of dominating sexual behavior (with a series of people predisposed to submission) is an expression of feelings of personal inadequacy. Submission, in my opinion, has something to do with feelings of guilt and underlying low self esteem - and claims by the submissive person that they enjoy it or feel empowered by it are either defensive denial or evidence of fairly deep emotional damage. This is, of course, only my opinion.

Erm, play abuse is not abuse - it is a mocking parody. In my opinion "vanilla" sex between a man and a woman has elements of abuse and actual domination far more often than BDSM does. To assume that "normal"/normative sex doesn't reflect patriarchal social relations, i.e. male domination, seems incredibly naive - how could it not? I'm not saying that "vanilla" sex is always necessarily an expression of male supremacy - there is nothing inherently patriarchal about it per se - but I am saying that it reflects, where it is unconscious, patriarchal power relations. BDSM is a conscious subverting of domination within sex. When the OP stresses how consent is always observed in the sex he engages in, it is not a sign of his guilt, it is a sign of consciousness of consent - there is nothing less actually degrading or oppressive towards women than consciously observing consent.

It is also this consciousness of existing power relations that leads to the OP's anxiety. But it really is simply a matter of overcoming the fear of the female submissive. Some women like to be consensually dominated - accept it. Lots of people have anxieties and feelings of guilt around homosexual desires they might have, but you would never say that this is because they should feel guilty, would you? Patriarchy socialises women into feeling like they shouldn't enjoy sex, that their role is exclusively to give a man pleasure. When women feel guilty about submissive desires I do not think it is unconnected from this. Likewise, when other people say that women only engage in submissive roles in sex because they have low self-esteem or whatever, again I think there is a patriarchal logic at play here and a failure to recognise and/or accept that women can, do, and should seek pleasure from sex when they want to.

[adipocere]

Erm, play abuse is not abuse - it is a mocking parody. In my opinion "vanilla" sex between a man and a woman has elements of abuse and actual domination far more often than BDSM does. To assume that "normal"/normative sex doesn't reflect patriarchal social relations, i.e. male domination, seems incredibly naive - how could it not? I'm not saying that "vanilla" sex is always necessarily an expression of male supremacy - there is nothing inherently patriarchal about it per se - but I am saying that it reflects, where it is unconscious, patriarchal power relations. BDSM is a conscious subverting of domination within sex. When the OP stresses how consent is always observed in the sex he engages in, it is not a sign of his guilt, it is a sign of consciousness of consent - there is nothing less actually degrading or oppressive towards women than consciously observing consent.

It is also this consciousness of existing power relations that leads to the OP's anxiety. But it really is simply a matter of overcoming the fear of the female submissive. Some women like to be consensually dominated - accept it. Lots of people have anxieties and feelings of guilt around homosexual desires they might have, but you would never say that this is because they should feel guilty, would you? Patriarchy socialises women into feeling like they shouldn't enjoy sex, that their role is exclusively to give a man pleasure. When women feel guilty about submissive desires I do not think it is unconnected from this. Likewise, when other people say that women only engage in submissive roles in sex because they have low self-esteem or whatever, again I think there is a patriarchal logic at play here and a failure to recognise and/or accept that women can, do, and should seek pleasure from sex when they want to.

Glass half full/half empty argument - it's a matter of perception. Actually, I don't want to get into a debate about this because it inevitably turns into circular logic. As long as people know boundaries, then whatever.

[A.J.]

I like a Lady on top.

Submissive women? I just don't dig them

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Well, no offense, but my initial reaction is that the dominant figure in this relationship is unconsciously hostile towards women, particularly towards women's sexuality or the dominant person feels deep personal inadequacy in regular life (ie work, school, social life) and they release their frustrations in private, controlled environments through activities with timid people to assert control, even symbolically, on other people who may or may not "threaten" the dominant one.

You seem to have some anxiety over your actions but I also noticed that you spoke about this almost as an observer. I think it is interesting that the you are quick to point out how consensual it all is and how the women like it, yet it causes you some anxiety. I see a bit of a blame shift here. I also noted how you pointed out that some of your partners were sexually abused/raped - further shifting your behavior as something you assume that they desire because they are going along with it physically and verbally - which could actually betray their own underlying feelings that sexual abuse and rape are something they somehow went along with.
It sounds like you are passing the responsibility of the degradation onto the woman - she likes it therefore it's ok for me to like it. It is also possible that these women enjoy it because you do...they derive their pleasure from your pleasure. It's possible that if you were really into "normal" sex, then your partners would too. What is your psychology here? You're playing the typical good guy role in a one sided story. Maybe you should think about that. Perhaps the reason these women stay interested in you over rough sex is because you are interested in women willing to be choked and spit on. However, I do think it's a two way street. I do think that abused women seek abusers - though I'm not saying your relationship is abusive. I'm just looking at it from another angle.

I also find that a lot of well meaning men are intellectually feminist, but they still have deep hostilities towards women and they choose to be actively feminist because they recognize this on some level and it doesn't mesh with their attraction to women with strong personalities. However, many women have hostile feelings towards other women as well - such is the nature of deep institutionalized oppression. The oppression runs so deep, it turns into something like self-loathing.

I'm not trying to seem combatative...it's just my opinion you are looking here to find validation for behavior that you know on some level is contrary to what you feel is moral. I think that a pattern of dominating sexual behavior (with a series of people predisposed to submission) is an expression of feelings of personal inadequacy. Submission, in my opinion, has something to do with feelings of guilt and underlying low self esteem - and claims by the submissive person that they enjoy it or feel empowered by it are either defensive denial or evidence of fairly deep emotional damage. This is, of course, only my opinion.
Everything that you've said is what lead me to ask the question in the first place. It is about anxiety, I want to know if my actions are right or not. If it wasn't a concern, I wouldn't ask.